Afoa v. Wash. Dep't of Labor & Indus.
| Decision Date | 29 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 76130-7-I,76130-7-I |
| Citation | 418 P.3d 190 |
| Parties | Brandon Apela AFOA, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Derek K. Moore, Bishop Law Offices PS, 19743 1st Ave. S, Normandy Park, WA, 98148-2401 for Appellant.
Paul Michael Weideman, Attorney at Law, 800 5th Ave. Ste. 2000, Seattle, WA, 98104-3188 for Respondent.
PUBLISHED OPINION
¶ 1 As the result of a compromise between employers and workers, in 1911, the legislature enacted the Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), Title 51 RCW. Employers agreed to pay personal injury claims that were not compensable under common law. In exchange, workers agreed to forfeit common law tort remedies. The IIA gives the worker the right to appeal the decision of the Department of Labor and Industries to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. Either party may appeal the decision of the Board to superior court. In 2013, Brandon Afoa filed a claim for 24-hour-a-day in-home attendant care services. Based on an independent assessment, the Department agreed to 16 hours a day for in-home attendant care services. The Board affirmed the decision. Afoa appealed to superior court and filed a jury demand. The jury found the Board correctly decided that Afoa needed only 16 hours a day for attendant care services. Afoa seeks reversal of the jury verdict. Afoa claims limiting the record in an IIA appeal to the evidence presented at the Board violates his right to a jury trial under article I, section 21 of the Washington Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine. We reject the argument that the IIA violates the right to a jury trial under article I, section 21 or separation of powers. The legislature had the authority to abolish the common law cause of action for negligence for workers and in its place enact workers' compensation under the IIA. The IIA limits the appeal to superior court to the certified record of the evidence presented to the Board, and under the civil rules the superior court IIA appeal is a special proceeding. We affirm.
¶ 2 Brandon Afoa worked at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport for Evergreen Aviation Ground Logistics Enterprises Incorporated. On December 26, 2007, Afoa was severely injured at work. Afoa is a paraplegic with nerve damage to his right arm and hand.
¶ 3 After release from the hospital, the Department of Labor and Industries (Department) paid for 24-hour-a-day in-home attendant care services. When Afoa was stable, the Department reduced in-home attendant care services to 16 hours a day. Afoa's father Mataala Te'o and Afoa's sister Hannah Mulifai provided in-home care services through Maxim Healthcare Services. Te'o provided care for Afoa during the day and Mulifai was available to provide care later in the day and at night.
¶ 4 In 2013, Afoa filed a claim to increase the amount the Department paid for In-home attendant care services from 16 to 24 hours a day. At the request of the Department, registered nurse consultant Elaine Baker conducted an assessment to determine necessary in-home attendant care services for Afoa. Baker recommended 16 hours a day for in-home attendant care services. The Department issued a notice of decision on January 30, 2014. The Department denied the request to increase in-home attendant care services to 24 hours a day.
¶ 5 Afoa appealed the decision to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board). An industrial appeals judge (IAJ) conducted a hearing on the appeal. A number of witnesses testified, including Afoa, Te'o, Mulifai, occupational therapist Christiane Buhl, occupational nurse consultant Kimberly Skoropinski, and registered nurse Baker. The IAJ admitted into evidence the videotaped deposition testimony of Afoa's expert Dr. Paul Nutter.
¶ 6 Occupational therapist Buhl worked with Afoa before his discharge from the hospital to skilled nursing care. Buhl focused on "strengthening his upper extremities, using his right arm, and increasing his time out of bed." Buhl testified that with assistance, Afoa could dress, groom, and feed himself. According to Buhl, Afoa "needed maximum assistance" for 50 to 75 percent of the tasks needed to bathe.
¶ 7 Afoa testified about his injuries and the in-home care services Te'o and Mulifai provide for him. Te'o and Mulifai testified about caring for Afoa.
¶ 8 Occupational nurse consultant Skoropinski testified that initially, Afoa received 24-hour attendant care, but when he "became more stable, care hours were reduced to 16." Skoropinski testified the Department pays "for actual care provided and not for hours that the caregiver is sleeping." Skoropinski described the tasks necessary for the care of Afoa and testified Afoa "needed only 6 hours of attendant care per day, but the Department continues to pay for 16." Skoropinski testified that "care services are not paid for on a per shift basis and the 16 hours per day payment is intended to be spread throughout a 24-hour day."
¶ 9 Registered nurse consultant Baker testified about her assessment of the number of hours Afoa needed for in-home attendant care services. Baker testified the Washington Administrative Code "allow[s] for attendant care to take care of the worker[']s activities of daily living and not chore services."1 After reviewing the caregiver records, Baker recommended the Department provide 16 hours of attendant care each day. Baker testified that "even ... if each task were accounted for it would not add up to that amount."
¶ 10 Afoa's expert Dr. Nutter testified that in his opinion, "optimal care would be for [Afoa] to have 24-hour aide services." However, Dr. Nutter admitted he told the Department that "continuously after January 1, 2013 ... 16 hours of care would be appropriate."
¶ 11 The IAJ affirmed the decision of the Department to deny the request for 24-hour-a-day in-home attendant care services. The IAJ found, "The time necessary to perform these tasks, along with other daily needs, do not come close to a need for the caregivers to be compensated for 24 hours." The IAJ concluded that while Te'o and Mulifai are available throughout a 24-hour period, "their services are not needed constantly through the day." Based on "the present tasks of daily living" and other necessary attendant care, the IAJ concluded the Department "is adequately compensating Mr. Afoa's caregivers with its determination of 16 hours per day" and affirmed the January 30, 2014 Department decision to deny the claim for 24-hour care services.
¶ 12 The proposed decision and order states, in pertinent part:
¶ 13 The Board adopted the proposed decision and order and denied the petition for review.
¶ 14 Afoa filed an appeal of the decision and a jury demand in superior court. The Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), Title 51 RCW, governs the appeal of a Board decision to superior court. Because review is de novo, the jury considers only the certified Board record and does not hear new evidence. RCW 51.52.115 ; Hill v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 161 Wash. App. 286, 291, 253 P.3d 430 (2011).
¶ 15 The court instructs the jury on the findings of the Board on each material issue. RCW 51.52.115. The findings and decision of the Board are "prima facie correct" and the burden is on the party challenging the decision to support the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. RCW 51.52.115 ; Rogers v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 151 Wash. App. 174, 179-80, 210 P.3d 355 (2009) ; Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5, 977 P.2d 570 (1999).4
¶ 16 In his trial brief, Afoa stated Mulifai would "read her own testimony transcript to the jury." Afoa argued that under CR 43(k), the court should also allow Mulifai to answer questions posed by the jury.5 The Department filed a motion in limine to preclude Afoa from calling Mulifai to read her testimony to the jury or answering questions posed by the jury. The Department argued that under the IIA, the record on review is limited to the certified Board transcript. The court granted the motion in limine.
¶ 17 During the trial, attorneys and paralegals read testimony from the certified Board record. Afoa also played the videotaped deposition of his expert Dr. Nutter to the jury.
¶ 18 Jury instruction 1 states the jury must consider the evidence that consists only of "the testimony of the witnesses which has been read to you, or provided to you by video, from the certified Appeal Board record," as well as the exhibits admitted.6 Jury instruction 9 also states:
The law requires that this case be tried solely on the evidence and testimony that was offered before the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. This means that the parties are not permitted to bring witnesses into court and have them testify before you. The evidence that you are to consider is limited to that contained in the record.
¶ 19 The court instructed the jury on the material findings and decision of the Board. Jury instruction 7 states:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re W.W.S.
...must remain inviolate, and one branch may not threaten the independence or integrity of another." Afoa v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 3 Wash. App. 2d 794, 810, 418 P.3d 190 (2018). To this end, "[c]ourts will not interfere with the work and decisions of an agency of the state, so long as quest......
-
State v. Starvish (In re W.W.S.)
...must remain inviolate, and one branch may not threaten the independence or integrity of another." Afoa v. Wash. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 3 Wash. App. 2d 794, 810, 418 P.3d 190 (2018). To this end, "[c]ourts will not interfere with the work and decisions of an agency of the state, so long as......
-
Lewis v. Wash. State Dep't of Labor & Indus.
... ... statute to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute ... is unconstitutional." Afoa v. Dep't of Labor ... & Indus ., 3 Wn.App. 2d 794, 804, 418 P.3d 190 ... (2018) ... RCW ... 51.12.102(1) ... superior court's order affirming the June 16, 2021 Board ... order, which are verities on appeal. Hopkins v. Dept ... ...
-
Wolf v. GE Healthcare
...a statute is constitutional is a question of law that we review de novo." Afoa v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 3 Wn.App. 2d 794, 804, 418 P.3d 190 (2018). A statute is presumed constitutional, and if possible, we will construe an enactment so as to render it constitutional. Kitsap County v. Kit......